Monkeyboy wrote: It's Limbaugh and that gang that's not really conservative.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote: It's Limbaugh and that gang that's not really conservative.

Yeah, seriously. What?

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote: It's Limbaugh and that gang that's not really conservative.

Yeah, seriously. What?

Grotewold wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote: It's Limbaugh and that gang that's not really conservative.

Yeah, seriously. What?

Well, traditionally, pre-emptive war, massive budget deficits, and recreational drug abuse were not "conservative" principles.

VoxOrion wrote:I think it's funny that I never hear conservatives talk about how so and so isn't a "real liberal". I guess liberals don't talk about who is a "real liberal" either (although I think the Clintons have come under this scope at times). I think it's just a debate tactic that conservatives don't use - maybe I'm wrong.

It's so weird when people do this. Non Christian Guy: "You aren't real Christians". Huh? Shouldn't the Christians determine what Christians are? How's an "outsider" going to know?

Grotewold wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote: It's Limbaugh and that gang that's not really conservative.

Yeah, seriously. What?

Well, traditionally, pre-emptive war, massive budget deficits, and recreational drug abuse were not "conservative" principles.

jerseyhoya wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I think it's funny that I never hear conservatives talk about how so and so isn't a "real liberal". I guess liberals don't talk about who is a "real liberal" either (although I think the Clintons have come under this scope at times). I think it's just a debate tactic that conservatives don't use - maybe I'm wrong.

It's so weird when people do this. Non Christian Guy: "You aren't real Christians". Huh? Shouldn't the Christians determine what Christians are? How's an "outsider" going to know?

Being a liberal is a bad thing. Being conservative is a good thing, so they try and make it an ideal that conservatives can't live up to.

VoxOrion wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote: It's Limbaugh and that gang that's not really conservative.

Yeah, seriously. What?

Well, traditionally, pre-emptive war, massive budget deficits, and recreational drug abuse were not "conservative" principles.

You're defining an ideology by the actions of one man (or a group of men). Does any single individual entirely represent an ideology (outside of some weird North Korea kind of thing).

Grotewold wrote:Fair, but Limbaugh has vociferously supported Incurious George pretty much all along, and I'm confident he'd fall all over himself to vote for him again in '08. He's a partisan, not a "conservative," IMHO.

VoxOrion wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I think it's funny that I never hear conservatives talk about how so and so isn't a "real liberal". I guess liberals don't talk about who is a "real liberal" either (although I think the Clintons have come under this scope at times). I think it's just a debate tactic that conservatives don't use - maybe I'm wrong.

It's so weird when people do this. Non Christian Guy: "You aren't real Christians". Huh? Shouldn't the Christians determine what Christians are? How's an "outsider" going to know?

Being a liberal is a bad thing. Being conservative is a good thing, so they try and make it an ideal that conservatives can't live up to.

But why care? I had a gay friend that was all hung up on the fact that Jesus never reffered to "gays" or "homosexuals" (or whatever being gay is called in Aramaic). He's not a Christian though - what does he care? I could see if he was part of a religious group seeking democratic change in a non-democratic institution - but he wasn't. It was just his big thing to run around and say to people "Did you know Jesus never talked about gays?"

Grotewold wrote:Fair, but Limbaugh has vociferously supported Incurious George pretty much all along, and I'm confident he'd fall all over himself to vote for him again in '08. He's a partisan, not a "conservative," IMHO.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:re: Vox's gay friend

But conservatives and Christians are often framing debates of public policy, like gay rights, in terms of what Christ or God would want. You can just reject that framework, but showing why it's a bad argument under those criteria is also a pretty valid way to argue the point.

pacino wrote:Because what other people believe does affect him. He is in a minority which has suffered discrimination because of other people's beliefs.

Monkeyboy wrote:Straight talk express

What does this mean? It means that rather than pledge his existing certification for matching funds as collateral for the loan, which would bind him to the system and thus the spending limits, McCain carefully pledged to seek to re-enter the system later, and to use a non-existent future certification as collateral. And while the system is "voluntary," McCain essentially traded away for cash his right to choose whether to participate in the system, and even his right to drop out of the presidential race, allowing the bank to force McCain "to remain an active candidate" in order to reapply for and qualify for funds. He was betting the spread (10 points) on his own primary performance! I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is a promise to perpetuate a fraud on the American taxpayers: if he no longer intended to seek the presidency, he made a legally-binding promise to pretend to remain in the race just long enough to collect public money to repay the loan.

Is this illegal? Who knows. Note that it took several days of discussion among top lawyers and former FEC commissioners to figure out whether it was even possible to opt out of the public financing system after opting in and qualifying for funds. No one's ever done that. And therefore, no one's ever opted back in, after opting out, after opting in. And therefore, no one's ever borrowed on the basis of a promise to opt back in, after opting out, after opting in. Is your head exploding yet?

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Because what other people believe does affect him. He is in a minority which has suffered discrimination because of other people's beliefs.

Let me rephrase - I'm not saying what other people believe doesn't effect him, I'm saying his argument is irrelevant, and I don't understand why he's trying to pick and choose bits from a religion he doesn't understand to try and convince people who do understand that they're wrong.

It's poor form and a waste of time.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign released exceprts from a speech she will give at 8:30 pm ET -- half an hour before the polls even close in Wisconsin, an indication she doesn't expect to win.

Clinton takes direct aim at Sen. Barack Obama:

"Both Senator Obama and I would make history. But only one of us is ready on day one to be commander in chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans. Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter and a champion for those who need a voice. That is what I would bring to the White House. That is the choice in this election... It’s about picking a president who relies not just on words – but on work, hard work, to get America back to work. Someone who’s not just in the speeches business – but will get America back in the solutions business."

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Because what other people believe does affect him. He is in a minority which has suffered discrimination because of other people's beliefs.

Let me rephrase - I'm not saying what other people believe doesn't effect him, I'm saying his argument is irrelevant, and I don't understand why he's trying to pick and choose bits from a religion he doesn't understand to try and convince people who do understand that they're wrong.

It's poor form and a waste of time.